Freethought & Rationalism Archive

zhugin · 11-08-2008, 04:43 AM

Regarding putting the manuscript on the Internet, there is the problem of it being a separate photo firm that develops and charges money for reproductions. That, and the income source reproduction de facto is, and of course the fact that this particular manuscript perhaps isn't very interesting to others (and they cannot online every manuscript just because someone is interested in them), makes me not really want to ask them (whom?) to online the folio. But feel free to write to them :-)

spin · 11-08-2008, 05:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by zhugin

Regarding putting the manuscript on the Internet, there is the problem of it being a separate photo firm that develops and charges money for reproductions. That, and the income source reproduction de facto is, and of course the fact that this particular manuscript perhaps isn't very interesting to others (and they cannot online every manuscript just because someone is interested in them), makes me not really want to ask them (whom?) to online the folio. But feel free to write to them :-)

Obviously it has to be the Biblioteca Medicea Laurenziana. As you've made contact, I figured you could also ask about them putting the photo online. Of course, if you provide the email address, I can also ask!

spin

Jeffrey Gibson · 11-08-2008, 05:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Quote:

Originally Posted by zhugin

Regarding putting the manuscript on the Internet, there is the problem of it being a separate photo firm that develops and charges money for reproductions. That, and the income source reproduction de facto is, and of course the fact that this particular manuscript perhaps isn't very interesting to others (and they cannot online every manuscript just because someone is interested in them), makes me not really want to ask them (whom?) to online the folio. But feel free to write to them :-)

Obviously it has to be the Biblioteca Medicea Laurenziana. As you've made contact, I figured you could also ask about them putting the photo online. Of course, if you provide the email address, I can also ask!

Try the addresses here:

http://www.bml.firenze.sbn.it/staff.htm

Jeffrey

zhugin · 11-08-2008, 06:00 AM

Perhaps the director is the right person to ask.

spin · 11-08-2008, 06:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeffrey Gibson

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Obviously it has to be the Biblioteca Medicea Laurenziana. As you've made contact, I figured you could also ask about them putting the photo online. Of course, if you provide the email address, I can also ask!

Try the addresses here:

http://www.bml.firenze.sbn.it/staff.htm

Thanks, but I was hoping to get a link to the specific person zhugin contacted, rather than guessing from the contacts page. It will probably have been one of the people of that page, but I think it would be better to know who first.

spin

Roger Pearse · 11-08-2008, 08:52 AM

I suspect that Zhugin was merely in contact with the reproductions people. They wouldn't be the people who made that decision to place stuff online. The director is probably too senior to care. Perhaps some of the PR or technical people?

What about "Sabina Magrini", in "Information access"? She also does "Public Relations." We could make the point that Richard Carrier made, that this is a textbook example of why the original manuscript is more valuable than a facsimile. Maybe she could do a little online exhibition of the images we've looked at -- the facsimile where it is unclear, and the UV which makes it clear?

I doubt that the BML allowed the external photographers to own the rights to the photograph. If they did, it would be an extraordinary thing, for they would have to pay to use photos of their own stuff that they had paid for themselves. So I think that they own all the photos. Maybe wrong, tho.

Roger Pearse · 11-08-2008, 09:11 AM

Right. I've written to her (in English). We'll see if I get a reply. Do feel able to have a go yourselves. I mentioned that there was discussion in "an online forum" but didn't give a link -- it's possible that if she's a fervent Roman Catholic she might decline to help what she supposes to be a bunch of atheists.

For those also wishing to have a go, the manuscript shelfmark is "Ms. plut. 68.2" and the folio is 038r. The image is the UV image.

If others write to other members of staff, that might help too.

zhugin · 11-09-2008, 05:54 PM

Good work, Pearse. I also do not think the reproduction guys are able to authorize any 'onlining' of material. I updated the article by the way.

Roger Pearse · 11-13-2008, 04:40 AM

I've had a reply from the BML:

Quote:

Oggetto: Richiesta informazioni e materiale on-line

Facendo seguito alla sua e-mail del 8 novembre u.s. le comunico che la Biblioteca è attualmente impegnata in un progetto di digitalizzazione del proprio fondo storico (fondo Plutei) del quale il Tacito fa parte. Nel giro dei prossimi 30 mesi queste digitalizzazioni – riprese tramite scansioni a luce naturale - saranno disponibili on-line da un portale gestito della Biblioteca. In futuro sar�* possibile poi prevedere anche la pubblicazione tramite il medesimo portale di digitalizzazioni riprese con luce ultra-violetta.

Ciò nondimeno nel giro di qualche giorno lei stesso potrebbe trasmettere il suo studio e pubblicare l’immagine digitalizzata del foglio in questione usufruendo del servizio di scambio/comunicazione messo a disposizione dal catalogo aperto della Biblioteca. Si tratta di un servizio nuovo, ancora in versione prototipale, che la biblioteca ha predisposto e messo in rete a titolo informativo lo scorso 25 ottobre (vd. www.bml.firenze.sbn.it sezione News).

Dal momento che la sua è la prima richiesta che potremmo soddisfare facendo uso di questo servizio, le chiedo di aspettare una settimana circa perché si possa finire di mettere a punto la funzionalit�* relativa alla registrazione degli utenti ‘contributori’. Sar�* mia cura ricontattarla quando la Biblioteca sar�* pronta.

Cordialmente,

My Italian isn't great, but this tells me that they are looking at digitising the entire 'Plutei' collection (of which the Tacitus is part). Here's an output from a machine translator, with limited improvements by me to para 1. Not sure what para 2 was about, but looks interesting -- anyone work it out?

Quote:

Object: Request information and online material

Further to your e-mail of November 8 u. s. I communicate them that the Library at present is pledged to a project of digitalisation of its own historical fund (fondo Plutei) of which the Tacitus is part. Over the next 30 months this digitalisation – scannings under natural light - will be available online from a portal managed by the Library. In future it will be possible then to expect also the publication in the same portal of digital photographs taken under ultra-violet light.

Nevertheless in the turn of some day she same it could transmit its study and to publish l' image digitalized some sheet in matter making use some service of exchange/communication put available from the open catalog of the Library. It is discussed of a new service, still in version prototipale, that the library aranged and put in net to informative title the past 25 October (vd. www.bml.firenze.sbn.it you dissect News).

At the moment yours is the first request that we could satisfy using this service, a week wonder to wait for them about because finishes putting point the relevant functionality to allow 'contributors' to register. It will be my responsibility when the Library is ready.

Cordially,

Toto · 11-13-2008, 01:48 PM

Here's what Google Translate produces:

Quote:

Subject: Request information and material on-line

In response to his e-mail us on November 8 to say that the Library is currently engaged in a digitization project of its historical background (bottom pluteus) which belongs to the Tacitus. In the next 30 months these scans - scans a filming by natural light - will be available on-line portal managed by the library. In future can compensate then include the publication through the same portal scans taken with ultra-violet light.

Yet within a few days you could pass his study and publish the digitized image of the paper in question by taking advantage of the exchange / communication made available from the catalog of the library open. This is a new service, still in prototype, which the library has prepared and put on the network for information on 25 October (see Section www.bml.firenze.sbn.it News).

Since his is the first request we might meet using this service, I ask you to wait about a week because we can finish developing the functionality on the registration of users' contributors'. Sare my care again when the Library compensate ready.

Sincerely,

But I think we have some Italian speakers on the board.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

11-08-2008, 04:43 AM	#81
zhugin Junior Member Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Tellus Posts: 45	Regarding putting the manuscript on the Internet, there is the problem of it being a separate photo firm that develops and charges money for reproductions. That, and the income source reproduction de facto is, and of course the fact that this particular manuscript perhaps isn't very interesting to others (and they cannot online every manuscript just because someone is interested in them), makes me not really want to ask them (whom?) to online the folio. But feel free to write to them :-)

11-08-2008, 06:00 AM	#84
zhugin Junior Member Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Tellus Posts: 45	Perhaps the director is the right person to ask.

11-08-2008, 08:52 AM	#86
Roger Pearse Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: N/A Posts: 4,370	I suspect that Zhugin was merely in contact with the reproductions people. They wouldn't be the people who made that decision to place stuff online. The director is probably too senior to care. Perhaps some of the PR or technical people? What about "Sabina Magrini", in "Information access"? She also does "Public Relations." We could make the point that Richard Carrier made, that this is a textbook example of why the original manuscript is more valuable than a facsimile. Maybe she could do a little online exhibition of the images we've looked at -- the facsimile where it is unclear, and the UV which makes it clear? I doubt that the BML allowed the external photographers to own the rights to the photograph. If they did, it would be an extraordinary thing, for they would have to pay to use photos of their own stuff that they had paid for themselves. So I think that they own all the photos. Maybe wrong, tho.

11-08-2008, 09:11 AM	#87
Roger Pearse Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: N/A Posts: 4,370	Right. I've written to her (in English). We'll see if I get a reply. Do feel able to have a go yourselves. I mentioned that there was discussion in "an online forum" but didn't give a link -- it's possible that if she's a fervent Roman Catholic she might decline to help what she supposes to be a bunch of atheists. For those also wishing to have a go, the manuscript shelfmark is "Ms. plut. 68.2" and the folio is 038r. The image is the UV image. If others write to other members of staff, that might help too.

11-09-2008, 05:54 PM	#88
zhugin Junior Member Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Tellus Posts: 45	Good work, Pearse. I also do not think the reproduction guys are able to authorize any 'onlining' of material. I updated the article by the way.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.